Johnston Atoll Remediation Project_WMSymp98

Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil Remediation Project
Project Controls & Management Tools for Environmental Reclamation and Remediation Projects; As Applied on the Johnston Atoll
Plutonium Contaminated Soil Remediation Project.

Project Controls & Management Tools for Environmental Reclamation and
Remediation Projects; As Applied on the Johnston Atoll Plutonium
Contaminated Soil Remediation Project.
A. L. Burdett, Thermo NUtech (TNU)
Page 1 of 10 Waste Management Symposium
Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
ABSTRACT
Project Management can be defined as the planning, organizing and managing of tasks and resources necessary to
accomplish a defined objective. An effective Project Controls Process provides for defining project objectives, goals,
and scope and provides the management tools necessary to control, status, and direct the various project elements within
the time and costs associated with the Project or Projects. These management tools are essential in controlling and
managing effectively. They provide the Project Management Team with the information necessary to ensure the
project will be accomplished “on-schedule” and “on-budget”. This is important for all types of projects;
Environmental Reclamation and Remediation Projects are no different.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss remediation project controls and to demonstrate how typical project controls
concepts and techniques have been applied to the management of the Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil
Remediation Project for the Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA).
INTRODUCTION
Given the complexity of typical environmental reclamation and remediation projects, “state-of-the art” control
techniques are needed in order to assure that they are completed satisfactorily. The more complex the project becomes,
the more detailed and sophisticated the control tools that are needed to maintain direction.
There are a number of reasons why projects fail to achieve their goals and objectives. The most obvious of these can be
summarized as follows:
 Lack of commitment to project funding.
 Poorly defined project objectives, goals and scope.
 Inadequate or the lack-of proper coordination of project resources.
 Loss-of “focus” on project goals and objectives or changes in direction after start.
 Lack-of or inadequate reporting and communication.
The use of Project Planning and Controls techniques is not a new concept. These techniques have been in use for many
years on numerous types of applications. Project controls have been used extensively in the engineering and
construction fields for many years. However, with the dramatic strides in technology over the years, likewise have come
more advanced controls tools, techniques, processes, programs and a wider range of applications.
The primary purpose of an effective project controls process is to assure that the opportunity for failure resulting from
the “pit-falls” is minimized; the “proof of process“ is in achieving the defined project goals within acceptable pre-
defined parameters. This is the ultimate goal of the Project Management Team. An effective project controls process
will provide the tools needed to:
 Accurately define and quantify the project.
 Develop plans for achieving each of the project goals.
 Provide tools to effectively manage, coordinate, and direct the project resources effectively.
 Provide a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and schedule to provide logic, order, and identify
“time-constraints”.
 Provide implementation and field controls necessary to manage and direct the project efficiently.
 Define and provide for project reporting to facilitate communication, and manage cost & budget.
Even though each project is unique, all projects share the need for effectively managing these elements. How well the
Project Management Team achieves this goal most often determines the project level of success.

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
BACKGROUND
History
Johnston Atoll (JA) is located approximately 864 miles southwest of Honolulu, Hawaii. JA is comprised of four islands:
Johnston, Sand, North and East. In 1962, JA was a launch site for atmospheric nuclear testing. During these tests three
rockets were intentionally destroyed (two at altitude and one on the launch pad) resulting in contamination of JA with
plutonium (Pu). Immediate actions were taken to bulldoze contamination into a 24 -acre Radiologically Controlled Area
(RCA). In 1975, a scientific panel recommended a comprehensive cleanup of contaminated soil at JA. Soil cleanup
began on a small scale using manual methods. The comprehensive cleanup was deferred when monitoring confirmed
that the current JA mission was being conducted safely and that the contamination was not an obstacle to the current
operations. Furthermore, Field Command Defense Special Weapons Agency, (FCDSWA) was initiating a major Pu soil
cleanup at Enewetak Atoll, and it had inadequate resources to conduct both cleanups simultaneously.
The Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA) with support from various contractors has built a unique plant to sort
the plutonium-contaminated soil at JA. The purpose of the JA Plutonium Contaminated Soil Remediation Project is to
process this soil through a plant which mechanically separates soil with high concentrations of Pu from soil with low to
zero Pu concentrations. The soils with “below criteria” concentrations are considered radiologically clean. The
objective of this process is to reduce the concentrated Pu into a smaller volume of soil, leaving the remaining soil
radiologically clean. This volume reduction process reduces the amount of material required to be packaged and
shipped off site for disposal and as a result reduces the cost of disposal considerably. The soil sorting plant is an
assembly of standard equipment found in mining and sand and gravel operations with sophisticated radiation detection
equipment, various measuring instruments, and computer control systems.
In 1988, a contract was awarded to AWC, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada, to design, procure, construct, and test a soil
cleanup plant at JA. In August 1990, the contract was awarded to Thermo NUtech (TNU) of Albuquerque, New Mexico
and its subcontractor, Morrison Knudsen (MK). The Statement of Work (SOW) for this contract consisted of
modification and upgrade of the existing AWC Design to improve process efficiency and increase soil processing rates.
A key strategy in TNU’s plan to improve plant efficiency was the development of the Segmented Gate Sorter (SGS)
System. This system was designed with the assistance of Eberline Instrument Corporation. The SGS System was
constructed and system testing on the first unit began in January 1992. Initial results were favorable and DSWA
authorized a plant modification to add a second complete SGS System designed to operate in parallel with the first unit.
These modifications were completed and tested by June 1993.
Technical
The principal technical objective of the work for this project is to maintain and operate the Johnston Atoll Plutonium
Contaminated Soil Remediation Plant, which takes continuous readings of Pu activity in soil and separates soil parcels
having less than 500 Becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg) from parcels with higher concentrations. This limit is equivalent
to the Environmental Protection Agency soil screening level, a value below which the risk of harm to people is trivial
and corrective (cleanup) actions are not required. To verify compliance with the cleanup guideline, the control room
samples soil hourly for activity measurement. These samples are used as indicators of distributed, volume
contamination.
The cleanup process must provide assurance that soil released from the plant as clean complies with established cleanup
guidelines, and soil designated as radioactive waste is properly characterized for transport and disposal at the
Department of Energy (DOE) Nevada Test Site (NTS) if appropriate. Accordingly, work must be consistent with DOE
Orders as well as Department of Defense (DOD) directives. Project Quality Assurance (QA) is conducted in accordance

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
with DOE Order 5700.6B, as codified in the Quality Assurance Plan, Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil
Cleanup Project, and Phase Two: Cleanup Operation.
SCOPE
TNU is currently acting as Field Command Defense Special Weapons Agency’s (FCDSWA) prime contractor for the
Johnston Atoll (JA) site and has the responsibility for Project Management, Site Management and all Field Operations.
These include operating and maintaining the SGS system, excavation operations, crusher operations, screen plant
operations and overall site interface, safety and access control. Additional field services include but are not limited to
site characterization utilizing the Global Positioning Environmental Radiological Surveyor (GPERS) “state of the art”
equipment, designed for performing radiological surveys in open-land areas. In addition to aiding characterization, this
equipment is also used to provide daily directions in the excavation operations and guidance in material handling
practices.
Quantification
Scope quantification is critical to the success of any project. This project, being a continuation over several years and
several different contracts makes the scope quantification even more critical. The original efforts in scope evaluation
were focused on defining the remaining volume of work required to complete the balance of the project, at the time of
the issue of the current contract. Funding limitations are, as with all projects, a large factor in determining the
management approach adopted by the Project Management Team. To facilitate quantification, much effort has been
put into defining the remaining scope, packaging conceptual estimates and schedules and grouping the scope in
manageable packages defined as optional work. Additional input has been provided in the development of a conceptual
completion plan.
To facilitate scope quantification and resource analysis, several basic construction planning techniques have been
utilized to analyze and present the scope for each of the fundamental processes required to complete the project. Tools
developed to quantify the remaining scope include site layout plans, logistical analysis by process flow diagrams, and
time in motion analysis, equipment production tables, site characterization and volume calculations. Here to follow are
general discussions pertaining to the basic scope tasked for the current Statement of Work.
Operations
Routine Operations: These activities include each of the SOW-defined operations that have been tasked for this period
of performance. These tasks include, but are not limited to: excavation, SGS operation, crusher operation and screen
plant operation. Additional routine tasks include site maintenance and administrative control such as area safety &
access control, procedures and project administrative support.
Site Maintenance: Site Maintenance has been broken into four categories: site grooming, corrosion control, plant
maintenance and heavy equipment maintenance. These items are all critical to maintaining the “life expectancy” of the
plant, maintaining production plans and maintaining health and safety standards.
Modifications: On-going plant operations may reveal the need to make modifications and changes in design to enhance
the soil cleanup process. Any changes must be made in a timely manner to meet production schedules. All
modifications of equipment or structures are documented and accompanied by appropriate drawings, calculations,
sketches and diagrams. All process modifications or design changes must be approved by the TNU Project Manager
(PM) and DSWA before implementation.
Site Characterization: Site characterization is an on-going process. An initial characterization was performed under the
previous SOW utilizing “state of the art” equipment and technologies in order to map the site and develop logistical
plans for continued excavation. These maps enable TNU & DSWA to move forward with completion plans and to work

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
smarter in the handling of the excavated material in order to achieve maximum possible volume reductions. This
technique coupled with special handling practices reduces the commingling of contaminants.
A Global Positioning Environmental Radiological Surveyor (GPERS) was used to define the radiological condition of
the site by identifying the 241
Americium(241
Am) activity relative to the locations latitude and longitude converted to
island grid coordinates of the measuring points. The GPERS unit coupled with a FIDLER detector records activity
levels every second. The operator utilizes a serpentine scanning method of surveying to locate and characterize process
material. The resulting data are processed and grid maps are generated to be utilized in guiding the excavation process.
Documentation & Reporting
Production Records: Production records for each of the SOW-defined processes are maintained. Production data are
collected during the production operation and recorded on the Daily Field Reports along with other operations data each
day. This information is reviewed by the Site Management Team for completeness and accuracy each day. The
information is collected and utilized in various other reports, which are prepared and provided for the project. SGS
sorter production is recorded in the SGS process equipment and is passed to the data reduction software. The production
throughput for the balance of the SOW-defined production processes is calculated using volume measurements and
recorded on the Daily Field Reports. Production data for all of the SOW-defined production tasks are recorded in a
production interface document and provided on a Quantity Tracking Report. This document is published in the Project
Status Report.
Process production plans have been developed based on the contract period of performance, WBS scheduled
deliverables and production target goals. Production Work-off Curves are maintained for each of the SOW-defined
production processes. These production curves are published in the Project Status Report. The Site Weekly Report
provides a weekly SGS production summary, which records daily production data and details on production delays and
explanations. These production loss assessments are utilized in the Project Status Report to provide performance
assessments.
Project Plans & Reports: Project plans have been prepared to ensure that the project meets the appropriate health, safety
and environmental standards as well as all the objectives and deliverables defined in the contract documents. This
includes preparation of a Project Management Plan, a QA Plan, a Health & Safety Plan incorporating ALARA concepts,
preparing a Waste Management Plan and a Decommissioning Plan. Data and reports are submitted to DSWA
demonstrating control of all the processes in accordance with the respective plans. Reports include, but are not limited
to documents, logs, memoranda, correspondence, data and other written materials that are critical to ensuring success of
the Project. Written operation procedures and health physics procedures have been prepared, revised, implemented and
maintained as the project progresses. Additionally, a complete library with index of engineering drawings and
instructions is maintained.
Daily Records: Daily records are collected and maintained to document the control of process and project. The data and
records collected are maintained accurate and true. TNU has designed daily reports to serve as the primary vehicle for
collecting and validating the daily activities in the field, as well as in the SGS control room. These reports are in
addition to the daily logs which are also maintained. The Daily Field Report provides for collecting production and
operating data for each of the SOW-defined production processes. This report allows for data used in documenting
volumetric calculations, equipment and manpower allocation, production accomplishments, production impacts and
comments that may be deemed appropriate for recording for future reference. The Daily Operations Report provides
for the collecting of essential data from the SGS control room.
Weekly Reports: The Site Manager prepares a Site Weekly Report each week to record events relative to site operations
during the applicable report period. This Report is addressed to Field Command Defense Special Weapons Agency,
from the TNU Site Manager through the Project Management office and is a critical tool in communication between

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
TNU & DSWA. This report is also a critical tool for communications between TNU Site Management and TNU Project
Management. This report has been structured to provide communication on the essential elements of the project.
Monthly Status: A Project Status Report has been developed to be used to communicate the project status relative to
the critical issues of the Project. This report is comprised of production interface reports, management plans and
indicators and project schedules. It provides the charts, graphs, plans and schedules that provide the detail needed to
effectively manage the project.
Quarterly Reports: Quarterly Reports are prepared per the provisions provided within the Contract Data Requirements
List (CDRL) requirements specified in the SOW. The preparation, review and issue of the Quarterly Reports have been
included in the Project WBS schedule for this contract period of performance.
Final Reporting: Final Reports are prepared per the provisions provided within the CDRL requirements specified in the
SOW. Draft and Final Reports are prepared and issued upon completion of the SOW.
Contract Deliverables
Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Items:
 Data item #1: Project Management Plan (PMP). This item provides for the development of the Project
Management Plan. This CDRL item invokes minimum requirements for this plan.
 Data item #2: Medical & ALARA Records. This CDRL item invokes requirements for TNU to maintain bioassay
and dosimetry monitoring for all personnel working within the RCA and to maintain complete medical records
throughout the contract subject to providing to the government at the end of the contract.
 Data item #3: Environmental Compliance. This CDRL item invokes requirements for development of Pollution
Prevention, Waste Minimization and Waste Management Plans. This would include procedure revisions and / or
additions and training as necessary to ensure control and ownership of mixed waste generation, pollution
minimization and control and personnel safety.
 Data item #4: Engineering Drawings / Documents. This CDRL item invokes requirements for development and
maintaining an up to date library with index of engineering drawings, instructions and service manuals.
 Data item #5: Funds and Man-hour Expenditure Report. This CDRL item invokes requirements for development
and issuing of a Cost Management Report on a monthly basis to support the DSWA Project Manager and the
DSWA Contracting Officer in interpreting monthly invoicing , actual manhour expenditures and resolving cost
related questions.
 Data item #6: Software User’s Manual and Computer Programs. This CDRL item invokes requirements for
maintaining the plant computer program and User’s manual and keeping DSWA current with revisions to
programming as they occur.
Performance & Trending: Project performance goals have been defined as:
 Production targets for each SOW-defined production process.
 SGS weekly production goals (MT / wk).
 Process material volume reduction (%).
 Sorter availability (%).
 Sorter operating efficiency factor (1.0).
 CPI / SPI performance indicators (1.0).
Management trending curves are provided to the Project Management Team to serve as indicators for performance
against each of the project goals. SGS production and performance assessments are trended in order to provide analysis
data “at a glance”. Managing each of these goals is vital for the management team to be able to maintain the necessary
control and ensure that project goals and objectives are achieved on schedule and within budget.

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
PROJECT CONTROL TOOLS
Project Controls is a broad term. It means different things to each member of the Project Management Team. To the
Field Supervisor it can be as simple as a “Daily Field Report” for collecting and recording daily production or technical
data or it can be as complex as an ”Area Characterization Map” providing the physical location of transuranic
contaminants for excavation. Additionally, to the Project Manager or to the Contracting Officer it can be a detailed
“Staffing Plan” and “Spend Plan” to address manpower needs or for funding and cost forecasting. There are many
different tools; the possibilities are limited only by the need and the imagination and creativity of the Project
Management Team.
Project Controls Tools can be grouped and analyzed in many different ways. However, for the purposes of this
discussion examples utilized on the Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil Remediation Project will be
grouped under:
 Production.
 Management.
 Schedule.
Production
Various production tools have been developed to collect, record, and trend, assess, and present the SOW-defined
production processes and technical data necessary to perform this SOW. Here to follow are discussions relative to each
of these project management tools, which are provided for within this Project Management Plan.
Quantity Tracking: The Quantity Tracking Report collects daily production information for each of the SOW-defined
production processes. This report provides weekly, monthly and cumulative to-date summaries for each of these
processes. This information is shared with the other various reporting tools to support the functions of the various
reports. This information is collected by the field and technical staff, recorded by the Plant Manager and reviewed by the
Site Manager daily.
Schedule Interface: The Schedule Interface Report interfaces with the Quantity Tracking Report, various process
production plans and the WBS schedule to provide current project status information. Information is extracted from the
various Production Plans to obtain the current forecasted quantities. The cumulative actual quantities are provided by
the Quantity Tracking Report and the percent complete for the various processes are calculated. This information is then
provided to the appropriate WBS schedule activities. This approach was selected to ensure that the schedule was
“production-based” and reflected as accurate a project status as possible. This report displays production activity and
total project comparisons of schedule duration used and schedule percent (%) complete. It also provides input to the
Schedule Performance Indicator (SPI) calculation.
SGS Performance Assessments: This operation represents the greatest percentage of the production activities for this
SOW. Most of the Project performance goals are SGS performance based. To provide the information necessary to
ensure these goals are achieved, SGS trending and performance assessments have been developed and are provided to
control this process. These assessments are presented on the SGS Performance Assessment Report. This report
provides visibility to weekly production, sorter availability, and sorter operating efficiency targets. This tool provides a
weekly and cumulative account of the actual production achievements compared to each of these target performance
goals. The data collected on this report feed the information provided on trending curves to be discussed later for each
of the performance targets.
Sorter assessed production losses are collected daily during operation. This information is collected and input with
justification coding to explain and categorize the hours of production losses. This enables the Project Management
Team to understand the nature of production impacts and to respond appropriately. This is a management trending tool

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
maintained to understand and present target production impacts. These data are trended to aid in making assessments
and operational decisions and adjustments in the operation of the process in a timely and effective manner.
Sorter Production Trending: The Sorter Production Trending Curve presents information collected on the SGS
Performance Assessment Report. This curve presents the period production target per week and provides the period
production achievements. Additionally, this curve pictures the total period production losses for comparison with the
period production achievements. This curve also provides the cumulative weekly production average at each period end,
since the beginning of this Period of Performance (POP).
Sorter Availability & Efficiency Trending: These trending curves provide an understanding of current SGS operational
status “at a glance”. The sorter availability trending curve gives indication if the sorters are operating efficiently enough
to achieve the target goal. This curve provides an availability evaluation for each period and a cumulative availability at
period end, since the beginning of the period of performance. The period availability is based on 4 sorters, operating 60
hours per week or 240 sorter-hours per week. The sorter availability assessment is simply the number of hours operated
divided by the total number of hours available.
The Operating Efficiency Trending Curve provides a feel for how effectively the sorters are operating during the time in
which they are operating. The sorters have the ability to exceed the target production rate. However, for the purposes of
this assessment a target production goal of 1.0 will achieve the necessary production target per week. This indicator then
gives adequate indication as to how effectively the sorters are operating.
Production Plan Work-Off Curves: A production plan was developed for each of the SOW-defined production processes:
 SGS Operations Sorter Production Plan (% of total material handling).
 Excavation Operations Production Plan (% of total material handling).
 Crusher Operations Production Plan (% of total material handling).
 Screen Plant Operations Production Plan (% of total material handling).
These plans were initially developed using optimum equipment and staffing. They were later tailored to match the
existing equipment in use and the current staffing levels and eventually adjusted to suit budget limitations. The work-off
curves were developed to picture realistically what could be accomplished and how each of the production target goals
was to be achieved.
Each of the production curves were tailored to the uniqueness of each production process. However, each provides a
weekly planned quantity, a planned remaining quantity at the period end, an actual quantity for the period and an actual
remaining quantity at the period end. An additional nuance includes the opportunity to develop and incorporate a
recovery plan, if the need should arise and include these forecasted production quantities in the “forecast at end”
production forecast for the process. A “forecast at end” of the period of production is provided based on the planned
remaining and the actual production todate. This information is utilized in the production activity status in the WBS
schedule.
In order to support the Plant Manager in pacing production for the excavation operations, the tonnage per week target
numbers were converted to average “trucks per day” of production material required in order to achieve the weekly
production tonnage. This information is provided for the “base plan” and for the “recovery plan” inclusive of the base
plan. This gives the Plant Manager an easy scale to use in setting his performance pace on a day-to-day basis through
the week.
Process Material Volume Reduction Trending: The total process material volume reduction goal remains to be a key
issue for this SOW. Two trending curves have been developed to track this project target goal. These curves illustrate
the target volume reduction for this project SOW and record the period volume reduction, as well as the cumulative
volume reduction at period end. Obviously volume reduction will be affected by a variety of factors. The most obvious
factor is the amount of and intensity of the activity residing within the process material. Trending the volume reduction

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
achievements over time and feed material source has proven that the excavations surrounding the launch emplacements
have contained the higher activity. Further trending has shown that the process material from the crusher has
experienced the highest volume reductions, followed by the screen plant process material. Trending this type of data at
this detail has enabled the Project Management Team to understand and even to predict with some degree of accuracy
the volume reductions expected. These trending curves have supported the technical studies performed via particle size
distribution analysis and activity levels previously discussed. With the knowledge gained from this technical data
trending, specialized equipment, special handling and process material staging techniques (previously discussed under
Site Characterization), this Project Target Goal can be managed.
Process Material Density Trending: SGS feed material densities are taken as part of the routine operating process.
These densities are taken from the sorter belts under operating conditions and are recorded in the “sorter operating”
software. These data are extracted and provided on the Density Trending Curves. The densities are trended according
to process feed source and these data are utilized to convert volumes of process material to metric tons of process
material. This continuous trending provides credence to the density conversion factors used for each of the respective
process operations.
Schedule Resource Availability Analysis: The objective for these resource graphs is to provide a quick assessment of
the availability or lack thereof for on-site personnel. These graphs merge the information from the Staffing Plan for on-
site personnel with the resource information from the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) schedule for comparison. The
intent is to identify resource shortages before they impact the site operations and ultimately impede achieving production
goals.
Management
Staffing Plan: The project staffing needs are determined and based on the WBS developed to accomplish the necessary
tasks identified to achieve the goals and objectives of the project. This structure is developed based on the SOW-
defined production, maintenance, administrative and reporting requirements within the contract. This structure must
address the Project Scope, which also includes all of the project support tasks required or imposed by the contract
governing codes and standards. This includes health and safety issues such as maintaining site access control and health
& safety records. The Staffing Plan should reflect the number of personnel required to satisfy the manpower needs of the
project within the budgetary limitations of the project. In times of conflict the scope of the work may have to be
negotiated to meet the budget of the project. The WBS likewise would reflect the scope adjusts, which would also be
reflected in the Staffing Plan. This “definitization process” often requires contract adjustments as well.
The Staffing Plan is a dynamic document and changes with the status and needs of the project. It is updated periodically
to agree with the Site Rotation Schedule, which is a TNU JA site document used to maintain and control personnel
rotations on and off island. It is important that the Staffing Plan be maintained current because it provides input to the
Spend Plan, which reflects the current project “cash flow” forecast. Attrition and staff changes are factored into the
Staffing Plan as they occur or as they become known.
Spend Plan: The Spend Plan is fashioned after the TNU project contract costing documents. It is also a dynamic
document and changes with the status and needs of the project. It is updated periodically to adjust for Staffing Plan
adjustments, material and equipment procurement changes and adjustments for actual monthly invoicing. The Spend
Plan is reconciled monthly for actual expenditures reflected in monthly invoicing. The reconciliation data are provided
from the Cost Management Report, which is provided each month to support the Project Management Team in cost
accounting matters to reconcile actual dollar expenditures from invoicing.
Cost Trending per SGS Metric Ton (MT): FCDSWA needed a tool for providing “macro-estimates” for funding
calculations and budget forecasts. TNU has collected project operating costs and assessed them against total metric tons
of processing through the SGS to provide trend data to support forecasting budget costs by metric ton of material to be

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
processed. These data provide a quick and accurate method for forecasting project costs based on actual historical
operations information.
Cost Performance Indicator (CPI): The Cost Performance Indicator (CPI) was developed to provide a cost indicator “at
a glance” to indicate as to how the project is progressing relative to cost. There are a number of different methods and
comparisons which can be used for measuring and defining the CPI. In this application, the CPI is used to link the cost
information provided within the schedule labor hours and dollars against the reality of actual dollar expenditures and
monthly forecasting.
Schedule Performance Indicator (SPI): The Schedule Performance Indicator (SPI) was developed to provide a schedule
indicator “at a glance” to indicate how the project is progressing relative to schedule. In this application, the SPI is used
to link the schedule percent complete with the calendar duration percent complete. It is a pure comparison of the amount
of duration used to-date compared to the amount of schedule completed to-date. In this application, the indicator is
based on the SOW-defined production activities only.
Cost Management Report (CMR): The Cost Management Report was designed and developed to clarify actual monthly
expenditures for reconciliation of monthly invoicing. It provides backup information and weekly break-out summaries
of labor hours, labor dollars, and material, equipment, travel and fee expenditures. This report was fashioned after the
original contract costing documents and provides monthly and cumulative cost summaries with breakouts for fees, taxes
and other contract funding categories. Additionally, it provides information on available funding, expensed funding
used and percent (%) of funding used at month end. This report is provided to the client to support monthly invoice
reconciliation. It is likewise utilized to update spend plans with actual expenditure information to ensure that forecasting
is kept as current and accurate as possible.
Schedule
Software: The Project Schedule utilizes Microsoft Project  as the scheduling software of choice. It provides a “user
friendly” system that allows for a quick turnaround for status, updates and reporting. Microsoft Project  coupled with
the Microsoft Office  utilizing Access for data base, Excel for spreadsheets and graphics provides for a “well-
rounded” control process, which is simple enough that it does not require a controls specialist to understand and
interpret.
Level I, Milestone Schedule: The Level I Schedule is used as the highest level of scheduling in the schedule hierarchy.
This schedule provides senior and upper management with the minimum level of detail possible in portraying the goals,
objectives or key events of the project. In this application, the Level I schedule is defined as the Project Milestone
Schedule. This schedule consists of key events or milestones identified by the Project Management Team. These
milestones represent the start or finish of the Contract Period of Performance, each of the SOW-defined production work
processes, critical Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverables, Quarterly / Final reporting activities and
Project mobilization / demobilization. Upon completion of the final contract definitization, these key events being
logically tied within the schedule are “base-lined” as a part of the Project Schedule. The project tracks the current
forecast dates against the baseline dates for each item selected for management tracking on the Milestone Schedule. The
Project Management Team then can identify changes in these milestones as the project progresses; Change in these
milestones indicates project status “at a glance”.
Level II, Summary Schedule: The Level II Schedule is the next highest level of scheduling in the schedule hierarchy.
This level of scheduling is a summary level, which is defined within the schedule structure. In this application, the Level
II Schedule is defined as the Project Summary Schedule. The activities reflected within the Level II Schedule are built
into the schedule and are a reflection of the details within the schedule structure and summarize the tasks that comprise
the various summary activities. These activities are “built” into the body of the schedule as it is “outlined”. This is a
management tool that allows a moderate amount of detail for identifying “pushes” to milestones for a quick
understanding as to why and what is causing changes to the Milestone Schedule “at a glance”.

Tucson, Arizona
March 1998
Level III, Detail Schedule: The Level III Schedule is the next level of scheduling in the schedule hierarchy. This level
of scheduling is the detail level, which is defined within the schedule structure. In this application, the Level III
Schedule is defined as the “Project All Tasks Schedule”. The activities reflected within the Level III Schedule are also
“built” into the body of the schedule and are a reflection of the details within the schedule structure as it is “outlined”
and represent the details and logic of the schedule. This is the working level schedule and it is at this level that projects
are controlled and statused.
Level IV, Task Breakdown Schedule: The Level IV Schedule is the lower level of scheduling in the schedule
hierarchy. This level of scheduling is the task breakdown level. This level includes the individual tasks that must be
performed in order to accomplish the various Level III schedule activities. This level of detail is most often used in
developing detail estimates for the Project and for defining the various Level III activities scheduling data. This level of
detail is often necessary to schedule “daily” work schedules for resources. In this application, Level IV Scheduling has
not been used. The Level IV details were used in development of the Level III details for schedule development and for
cost estimates only.
CONCLUSION
These Project Management tools have been developed and defined in the Project Management Plan and are provided to
the project in the form of a Project Controls Manual. The controls manual provides functional structure to the project
controls process. This manual is issued to the Project Management Team following final contract definitization and
establishing of a “base-line” WBS and schedule. The manual is issued again in its final form upon completion of the
contract period of performance.
The project control tools and techniques developed and utilized on the Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil
Remediation Project have provided structure and definition to the project. Additionally, they have helped to more
clearly define the objectives, goals and scope of the project. Furthermore, the use of these techniques has helped the
Project Management Team maintain “focus” and clarity of direction. This process has effectively demonstrated “control
of process” by clearly defining the various control techniques, documents, reporting processes and data and information
exchange processes. Figure 1 has been provided to demonstrate the Project Controls Manual development. Figure 2
illustrates the data and information exchange between the various control documents, which have been discussed.
Figure 3 provides an “overview” of the various reporting documents and pictures their interface and reflects the
contribution to enhanced communication for each report. Figure 4 has been developed to provide an organizational
structure with basic position descriptions.
The control's process by design has addressed the following issues:
 Minimizing the opportunities for obvious reasons for project failure.
 Developing control documents to provide “organizational structure” to the project.
 Enhancing reports and data information exchange to facilitate project communication.
 Demonstrating “proof of process” thru defined control processes.
 Defining project funding needs and forecasting to facilitate commitment to project funding.
This project has demonstrated the advantage in using project controls and management tools in environmental
reclamation and remediation projects. These “tools” have enabled the Project Management Team to effectively manage
schedule and budget on a daily basis. These practices have enabled the project to be accomplished “on-schedule” and
“on-budget”.

Revision Date: 11/10/97
Johnston Atoll Plutonium Soil Remediation Project
Project Controls Process Overview(s)
Date: 1/13/2014
Project Controls Manual Development
RFQ / Letter of Contract
Statement of work
Materials (Scope & Period of Performance) Equipment
Funding Manpower
Process Flow Analysis Estimates Time-in motion studies
Scope Clarification Equipment Production Analysis
Resource Analysis
WBS Cost
Schedule Project Control Manual
Logic Flow Cost Management Reports
Process Controls Production Plans
Trending Curves Control Documents
Spend Plans
Procedures
Mgmnt Plans Org Charts Staffing Plans
WM98sym.xlsx
Figure 1 Figure 1
Prj Mgr Rick Doane
Site Mgr Allan Burdett

Date: 1/13/2014
Process Data Reporting Control Chart
Planned Staffing Levels Staffing Plan
Spend Plan
Actual & Forecast Labor $
On-Site Rotation
Schedule
CPI / SPI Trending Site Rotation Plan
Actual Expenditure
Reconciliation
Actual / Forecast Operating
Costs
Planned Staffing
Levels
Cost Management Report
Site Operations Costs per SGS
MT Trending
Resource Analysis
SGS Daily Operations Report Earned Labor $
On-Site Scheduled Staffing
Needs
Daily Field Reports WBS Schedule
Density Trending
Actual SGS
Production MT
Operation Production Quantities
Production Activity %
Complete
Duration and % Complete
Process Density Data
Process Density
Data
JACC Sorter Run Data Quantity Tracking Report
Actual Production
Quantities
Schedule Interface Report
Production Data
Production Data and
Production Loss Assessments
Actual Production Quantities
Current Forecasted
Quantities
SGS Weekly Production
Summary
Production Loss Assessments SGS Performance
Assessments
Production Plans
WM98sym.xlsx
Figure 2 Figure 2
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Date: 1/13/2014
Project Reporting Control Chart
Quarterly & Final Reports
Contract Statement Of Work(# DSWA01-97-C-0064)
File: Process98 Prj Mgr
Project WBS Project Status Report (Monthly Issue)
File: Base WBS, JAPFY98base.MPP Site Mgr File: Jafy98 Description Site Mgr
Milestone Schedule: Level I I Production Interface: Quantity Tracking
Summary Schedule: Level II Schedule Interface
Detail Project Schedule: Level III SGS Performance Assessments
Task Breakdown: Level IV Sorter Production Trending
Equipment maintenance schedule Sorter Availability & Operating Efficiency Trending
4-Week Rolling Field Schedule Volume Reduction Trending
Resource Table Density Trending
Histograms SGS Operations Sorter Production Plan
Budget & Cost Reports Excavations Operations Production Plan
File: Option WBS Crusher Operations Production Plan
Option 1 JAPFY98O1 Screen Plant Operations Production Plan
Option 2 JAPFY98O2 Schedule Resource Availability Analysis
Option 3 JAPFY98O3 II Management Plans Site Operations Cost Trending
Option 4 JAPFY98O4 & Indicators: Staffing Plan
Component Removal JAPFY98WECR Spend Plan Forecast
III Schedules: Level I, II, III Schedules
Site Weekly Report Schedule:
File: Wk(Date).doc Site Weekly Report Site Mgr Prepared on Saturday - Monday,
SGS Weekly Production Summary Draft to Oak Ridge on Monday
Sorter Run Data Incorporate comments & issue Package on Tuesday.
Daily Field Reports
File: Daily Plt Mgr
Screen Plant Field
Data
Excavation Field
Data
Crusher Field Data
Sorter Run Data
Review
Site Eng Site Eng Site Eng Site Mgr
Format & Print
Report
Sorter Run Data
Reduction Process
JACC Data file
Control Room
Daily Operations
Report
Tech Asst
Tech Asst Control Room Operator
Data input Data Reduction
Tech Asst Tech Asst
WM98sym.xlsx
Figure 3 Figure 3
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Date: 1/13/2014
Project Management Organization Chart
TNU Project Manager
R. Doane IN - PLANT STAFFING
Dept Project Manager / Data Analyst
D. Royal
Project Assistant Project Controls - Cost Support Project Management in the day to day operation and prepare
D. Huckleby Cost & Budget T. Juni Project Plans and Project contract Deliverables.
Admin Support, Procedure , Management Plans Data reduction software programming, GPS site characterization, data reduction and programming.
TNU Site Manager ON - SITE STAFFING
Manage & Supervise on-site resources for all administrative functions required A. Burdett
to support site operations, maintenance, repairs and modifications. Maintain
Project Controls Process, Scope, Production, Status & Schedule.
TNU Plant Manager
Manage & Supervise on-site resources for all field operations, D. Law
maintenance, repairs and modifications:
Technical Assistant Operators Health Physics Techs
L. Moll
Admin support, processing Sorter Run Data, Plant Dan Fukuoko (PO#1) Control Room H. Trujillo (HP-CR)
assist in preparation of Weekly & Quarterly Reports, Alex Luna (PO#2) M. Morris (HP-CR)
Administration of island policies. SGS plant operation, repairs & maintenance JACC Software Operation & Documentation
Equipment G. Fukuoko (HEO#1) Instrument Technician B. Knight (HP-I)
L. Strow (HEO#2) Electronic instrument maintenance, repairs & calibrations
Jimmy Robinson (HEO#3)
Equipment operation, repairs & maintenance Safety & Access Control D. Roznovsky (HP-AC)
Site & Area access control, OSHA & Site HP Procedure compliance
Welder Anthony Burks (W-O)
SGS plant operation, structural repairs & maintenance
Corrosion Control, Site maintenance & Site Grooming
Daily Equipment checks, maintenance and minor repairs
Electrician Dan Cordova (E-O)
SGS plant operation, electrical repairs & maintenance
WM98sym.xlsx Figure 4
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Operations Analysis Flow Chart
SGS (Sorter) Operations
Run Date: 1/13/2014
Exist'g 1/8"(-) MT Exist'g 1/2"(-)
Hot Particle (Potential 1/16" screen feed) Crushed Pile MT Clean Excavation
Stock Pile MT Oversized MT
MT (Sorter 3 & 4 feed)
1/8" (-)
Crusher Plant MT(Excav.) Sorters 1 & 2
Clean Crusher
MT MT MT MT
(~Crusher Feed)
MT Hot 1/8 " (+) Screen
Day
Bin
Wet End
Clean Area
MT (Crusher) (Below Criteria)
Exist'g Over-size Exist'g Sorter MT Clean 1/8" Screen
96 LE1 Excavation Stock Piles Stock Piles Sorters 3 & 4
MT
MT 1/8" screen Feed MT MT MT LE2
Stock Pile (Crusher Feed) (Sorter 1 & 2 feed) MT (1/8"Screens) 97 Excavation
MT Hot Excavation MT
MT
Hot Crusher
MT
(1/8" screens)
Screen Plant
MT
LE1 MT MT
97 Excavation
(~ 1/8" Screen Feed)
MT
MT
New 1/8"(+) New Excavation New Excavation
Hot Particle High Activity Low Activity 96 LE2 Excavation
Stock Piles Stock Piles Stock Piles MT
MT (Sorter 1 & 2 feed) (Sorter 1 & 2 feed)
MT MT
MT
MT (Crusher Feed) Sorter Production Summary
Sorter SOW Production Summary Sorter In Out
Excavation MT Feed Clean Hot Total
Crusher MT 1 & 2 MT MT MT MT
Sreen Plant MT 3 & 4 MT MT MT MT
SOW Total MT Total MT MT MT MT
Concrete Disposal
Operations
Scrap Metal
Disposal Operations
MT
WM98sym.xlsx
SorterFlow
Rick Doane, Prj Mgr
Allan Burdett, DPrj Mgr

Status Thru: 2/15/98
Thermo NUtech
Johnston-Atoll Project
Production Interface Report
Run Date: 1/13/2014
Sorter Tonage
Planned Remaining 75,968
Actual Remaining
Weekly Plan 23,533
Actual Qty 51,837
2/15/98 Recovery Plan 0
Period Qty Req'd By Recovery Plan
Forecast @ End 75,370
SGS Production Basis: 75,370
On-ground as of PE(2/15/98) 7,306
Revised Excavation Plan (2/15/9 16,227
Actuals as of PE (2/15/98) 51,837
Total Project Todate
Total Project Forecast 145,815
Period Production
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
38,700 37,650 36,412 35,362 34,312 33,262 32,112 31,152 30,192 30,192 30,192 29,712 28,752 27,502 26,179 24,856 23,533 22,210 20,887 19,564 18,241 16,918 15,595 14,272
38,916 37,650 36,412 35,792 34,798 34,154 33,397 32,112 30,969 30,969 30,969 30,516 29,179 28,374 27,034 25,628 24,131
620 1,050 1,238 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,150 960 960 0 0 480 960 1,250 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323
439 1,266 1,238 620 994 644 758 1,285 1,143 0 0 453 1,337 805 1,341 1,406 1,497
*2 Sorter Operations 3 Sorter Operations 4 Sorter Operations
Estimated Feed material on Ground: 16,958 16,315 15,557 14,272 13,312 13,312 13,312 13,252 12,354 11,550 10,209 8,804 7,306 6,475 5,644 4,813 3,982 3,151 2,320 1,489
Period excavation; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 440 0 0 0 0 492 492 492 492 492 492 492
* Preliminary SGS Production Plan for Contract extension and definitization based on reduced excavation capabilities.
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
182,866 184,132 185,370 185,990 186,984 187,628 188,385 189,670 190,813 190,813 190,813 191,266 192,603 193,408 194,748 196,154 197,651
439 1,266 1,238 620 994 644 758 1,285 1,143 0 0 453 1,337 805 1,341 1,406 1,497
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
4/6 4/27 5/18 6/8 6/29 7/20 8/10 8/31 9/21 10/12 11/2 11/23 12/14 1/4 1/25 2/15 3/8 3/29 4/19 5/10 5/31 6/21 7/12 8/2 8/23 9/13 10/4
MT / WeekMT Remaining
Period Ending
SGS Operations Sorter Production Plan
Planned Remaining 75,968 Actual Remaining Weekly Plan 23,533 Actual Qty 51,837
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
220,000
240,000
260,000
280,000
4/6 4/20 5/4 5/18 6/1 6/15 6/29 7/13 7/27 8/10 8/24 9/7 9/21 10/5 10/19 11/2 11/16 11/30 12/14 12/28 1/11 1/25 2/8 2/22 3/8 3/22 4/5 4/19 5/3 5/17 5/31 6/14 6/28 7/12 7/26 8/9 8/23 9/6 9/20 10/4
Period Production
Project Totals
Period Ending
Total Project Sorter Production Forecasting
Total Project Forecast 145,815 Period Production Linear (Total Project Forecast 145,815)
WM98sym.xlsx
SGS-Plan
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Run Date: 1/13/2014
Excavation Tonnage
Planned Remaining 32,756
Actual Remaining
Weekly Plan 16,181
Actual Qty 15,993
2/15/98 Recovery Plan 0
Period Qty Req'd By Recovery Plan
Forecast @ End 32,174
Average Trucks / day:
Plan
Recovery
Actual
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5/1998
17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,165 16,673 16,181 15,689 15,197 14,705 14,213 13,721 13,229 12,737
17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,595 17,202 16,763 16,763 16,763 16,763 16,763
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 492
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 440 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0
* Preliminary Excavation Production Plan for Contract extension and definitization based on reduced excavation capabilities.
Note: Plan Basis & Key Assumptions;
1) No Excavator will be added to the Site Equipment listing.
2) Total Available Excavation Material 13,277 MT: Detailed in Excavation Material Quantification Assessment Dated 12/19/97.
3) 13,277 MT / 27 production weeks (4/5/98 thru 10/4/98) = ~492 MT / week
4) The Excavation process will not be able to keep up with SGS production rate once existing feed stock piles are processed.
5) Sorter Production will be limited to ~ 400 - 600 MT per week after 4/5/98 unless the excavation process is resumed earlier than presently scheduled.
See revisions provided on Preliminary SGS Production Plan
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
4/6 4/27 5/18 6/8 6/29 7/20 8/10 8/31 9/21 10/12 11/2 11/23 12/14 1/4 1/25 2/15 3/8 3/29 4/19 5/10 5/31 6/21 7/12 8/2 8/23 9/13 10/4
MT / WeekMT Remaining
Period Ending
Excavation Operations Plan Work-Off Curve
Planned Remaining 32,756 Actual Remaining Weekly Plan 16,181 Actual Qty 15,993
WM98sym.xlsx
Work-off Plans
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Johnston - Atoll Project
Production interface Report
1/13/2014
Period Sorter Production Data
Period Production Target
Assessed Production Losses
Period Production
Cumulative Wkly Production average
Note: Sorter Availability & Operating Efficiency
Assessments Based On Target Production.
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886 1,886
1,564 1,003 1,013 1,435 1,127 1,394 1,343 925 1,166 1,887 1,887 1,598 1,044 1,373 1,049 986 964
439 1,266 1,238 620 994 644 758 1,285 1,143 0 0 453 1,337 805 1,341 1,406 1,497
1,270 1,270 1,269 1,248 1,241 1,223 1,210 1,212 1,210 1,178 1,148 1,131 1,136 1,128 1,133 1,139 1,147
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
Production (MT/Wk)
Week Ending
Sorter Production Trending
Period Production Target Assessed Production Losses Period Production Cumulative Wkly Production average
Production Trending
Production Loss Trending
Target 1886 MT / Wk
WM98sym.xlsx
SGS-Perf
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Johnston - Atoll Project
Production interface Report
1/13/2014
Period Sorter(s) Availability
Cumulative Sorter(s) Availability
Period Production Efficiency Factor
Cumulative Production Efficiency Factor
Note: Sorter Availability & Operating Efficiency
Assessments Based On Target Production.
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
17% 47% 46% 24% 40% 26% 29% 51% 38% 15% 45% 27% 44% 48% 49%
54% 53% 53% 52% 52% 51% 50% 50% 50% 49% 48% 47% 47% 46% 46% 46% 46%
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
1.36 1.43 1.42 1.37 1.31 1.31 1.40 1.34 1.59 1.57 1.59 1.57 1.60 1.56 1.62
1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.38
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
% Availability
Period Ending
Sorter Availability Trending
Period Sorter(s) Availability Cumulative Sorter(s) Availability
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
Efficiency Factor
Period Ending
Sorter(s) Operating Efficiency Trending
Period Production Efficiency Factor Cumulative Production Efficiency Factor
Target Efficiency
Target Availability (80%)
WM98sym.xlsx
SGS-Perf
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Johnston Atoll Project
Project Management Performance Indicators
Date: 1/13/2014
Performance Indicators: Cumulative thru Period End
Period Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98
Target 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cost (CPI) 1.40 1.24 1.05 0.98 0.96 0.93 0.89 0.85 0.83 0.77 0.76
Schedule (SPI) 1.13 1.16 1.18 1.07 0.99 0.94 0.91 0.98 0.89 0.93 0.97
(thru PE 2/15)
Definitions:
CPI = Total Schedule Earned Labor Dollars / Total Actual Labor Dollars(In-Plant & On-Site)
SPI = Project Production Activity Schedule % Complete / Project Production Activity Duration % Complete
Contract SOW definitized in November, 97 (associated schedule revisions made)
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98
Performance
Month
CPI / SPI Performance Trending
Target Cost (CPI) Schedule (SPI)
Target Performance Indicator
Good
Not Good
WM98sym.xlsx
CPI-SPI
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Schedule Resource Availabilty Analysis
Run Date: 1/13/2014
Period Ending
Project Schedule
Site Rotation Schedule
Summary
Period Ending
Project Schedule
Summary
Period Ending
Project Schedule
Summary
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.0
7 5 5 7 6 6 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 6 7 5 5 5 3 3 2 4 3
-1.8 -3.8 -3.8 -1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 0.0 0.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -3.0 -3.0 -4.1 -2.1 -3.0
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0
-1.6 -1.6 -2.6 -2.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.9 -0.1 -1.1 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -1.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.9 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 0.9
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 11.8 11.7 11.7 11.4 11.4 0.0 0.0 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.2 11.9 11.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.4 12.4 12.5 11.9
12.0 11.0 11.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 10.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 6.0 8.0 9.0
-5.2 -6.2 -6.2 -3.2 0.2 0.3 1.3 -1.4 -4.4 0.0 0.0 -5.4 -4.4 -0.4 -0.2 1.1 -0.9 -1.7 -2.7 -3.7 -5.4 -6.4 -4.5 -2.9
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3/30 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
Over / Short# Men
Week Ending
HP Tech Resource Analysis
Project Schedule Site Rotation Schedule Summary
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
3/30 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
Over / Short# Men
Week Ending
Total Staffing Resource Analysis
Average Staffing @ 3 HP Techs (11/19/97thru 4/5/98)
Average Staffing @ 10 (11/19/97 thru 4/5/98)
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
3/30 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
Over / Short# Men
Week Ending
Operator Resource Analysis
Average Staffing @ 5 Operators(11/19/97 thru 4/5/98)
WM98sym.xlsx
ResAnalysis
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Run Date: 1/13/2014
Period Trending
Screen Plant Material
….. (Hot Particle, 1/8+)
Crusher Material
….. (Various Locations)
Excavation Material
Period Average
Cumulative Trending
Screen Plant Material(1/8+)
Crusher Material
Excavation Material
Cumulative Average
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
1.33 1.34 1.35
1.40 1.48 1.31 1.39 1.40 1.40
1.37 1.40 1.40 1.38 1.30 1.47 1.40 1.40 1.42 1.40 1.39 1.40
1.36 1.42 1.40 1.36 1.38 1.30 1.47 1.39 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.41 1.40 1.39 1.40
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37
1.40 1.41 1.41 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
1.36 1.36 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.38
1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
Density
Period Ending
Cumulative Density Trending By Source
Screen Plant Material(1/8+) Crusher Material Excavation Material Cumulative Average
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29 4/12 4/26
Density
Period Ending
Period Density Trending By Source
Screen Plant Material
….. (Hot Particle, 1/8+)
Crusher Material
….. (Various Locations)
Excavation Material
Period Average
WM98sym.xlsx
Density
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Run Date: 1/13/2014
Cumulative
Reductions
Screen Plant
Material (Pile, 1/8+)
Crusher Material
(Various Locations)
LE 1 Excavation
Material
LE 2 Excavation
Material
Weekly Average
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
77.0% 77.0% 77.0% 77.0% 77.0% 77.0% 77.0% 76.8% 76.0% 76.0% 76.0% 76.0% 76.0% 76.0% 76.0% 76.0% 76.0%
92.4% 92.2% 92.2% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 90.7% 89.8% 89.8% 89.8% 89.8% 89.8% 89.7% 89.7% 89.7% 89.7%
62.4% 63.3% 68.1% 68.7% 69.1% 69.5% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 69.8% 66.7% 65.6% 64.1% 63.0% 62.4%
81.9% 81.9% 81.9% 81.9% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1%
85.0% 84.8% 84.6% 84.5% 84.2% 84.1% 84.0% 83.5% 83.0% 83.0% 83.0% 82.8% 81.8% 81.3% 80.6% 79.8% 79.2%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
105.0%
4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 9/14 9/28 10/12 10/26 11/9 11/23 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 3/29
Cum % Reduction
Period Ending
Volume Reduction Trending By Process Source Group
Screen Plant Material (Pile, 1/8+) Crusher Material (Various Locations) LE 1 Excavation Material
LE 2 Excavation Material Weekly Average
Target Volume Reduction (90%)
WM98sym.xlsx
Vol-red2
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Site Operations Cost Trending
Run Date: 1/13/2014
Period ~ $ / MT / Wk
Cumulative ~ $ / MT / Wk
$ / Wk
Period Production / Wk
Actuals thru PE 9/28/97
10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
$129.94 $44.13 $41.94 $101.48 $69.25 $102.73 $66.30 $39.57 $42.78 $20.30 $23.70 $64.01 $39.74 $39.76 $33.12
$41.32 $41.41 $41.43 $42.34 $42.98 $43.89 $44.28 $44.15 $44.11 $45.05 $45.57 $45.32 $44.71 $45.18 $45.03 $44.89 $44.55
$57,081 $55,855 $51,938 $62,927 $68,826 $66,105 $50,225 $50,829 $48,906 $42,736 $23,391 $9,197 $31,694 $51,499 $53,275 $55,885 $49,595
439 1266 1238 620 994 644 758 1285 1143 0 0 453 1337 805 1341 1406 1497
Note:
1. Cost Estimate is based on current Level of Effort, which includes funding limitations.
2. Current funding limitations include, Limited Plant & Equipment maintenance, Site Grooming & Engineering support.
3. Areas of limited support include Corrosion Control Operator, Heavy Equipment Mechanic, Site Engineer & additional Production Operations personnel (7).
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
4/6 4/20 5/4 5/18 6/1 6/15 6/29 7/13 7/27 8/10 8/24 9/7 9/21 10/5 10/19 11/2 11/16 11/30 12/14 12/28 1/11 1/25 2/8 2/22 3/8 3/22 4/5
~ Cum Cost / MT~ Period Cost / MT
Period Ending
Site Operations Estimated Cost Trending per SGS MT
Period ~ $ / MT / Wk Cumulative ~ $ / MT / Wk
WM98sym.xlsx
CostSGSMT
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil Remediation Project Closure
Issue Date: 9/27/00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2
2000
245d
79%
04/24/00 03/30/01
114d
100%
04/24/00 09/28/00
27d
100%
04/24/00 05/31/00
30d
100%
06/01/00 07/13/00
30d
100%
07/14/00 08/24/00
24d
100%
08/25/00 09/28/00
116d
10/19/00 03/29/01
116d
10/19/00 03/29/01
30d
10/19/00 11/29/00
14d
10/19/00 11/07/00
14d
11/08/00 11/29/00
86d
11/30/00 03/29/01
14d
11/30/00 12/19/00
# Task Name Notes Labor Cost
1 JAPCSRP Project Closure (DSWA01-97-C-0064) 656h $62,091
2 Project Status Assessment & Estimates 75h $3,951
3 TNU Status Reviews & Correspondence to FCDTRA 69h $3,319
4 FCDTRA Reviews & Recommendations to HQDTRA Follow-up & Q&A 2h $211
5 HQDTRA Reviews & Authorizations to Proceed Follow-up & Q&A 2h $211
6 Cost Negotiations & Issue Contract Modification to proceed Follow-up & Q&A 2h $211
7 CDRL #1: Project Reporting & Paper Closure 554h $30,012
8 Quarterly Report Completion 320h $17,994
9 Prior Contract Reporting DNA001-93-C-0148 80h $4,545
10 DSWA-TR-96-50/10 Period: 01 Oct 95-31 Dec 95 40h $2,304
11 DSWA-TR-97-64/15 Period: 01 Jan 97-03 Apr 97 40h $2,242
12 Current Contract Reporting DSWA01-97-C-0064 240h $13,449
13 DSWA-TR-97-70/1 Period: 04 Apr 97-30 Jun 97 40h $2,242
Default
Complete Complete Milestone Remaining Remaining Milestone Baseline 1 Required Date % Labor Complete
Attachment 4 Page # 1 of 2

Johnston Atoll Plutonium Contaminated Soil Remediation Project Closure
Issue Date: 9/27/00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2
2000
14d
12/20/00 01/10/01
14d
01/11/01 01/30/01
14d
01/31/01 02/19/01
14d
02/20/01 03/09/01
14d
03/12/01 03/29/01
112d
10/19/00 03/29/01
10d
10/19/00 11/01/00
10d
10/19/00 11/01/00
5d
10/19/00 10/25/00
5d
10/26/00 11/01/00
238d
77%
04/24/00 03/30/01
# Task Name Notes Labor Cost
14 DSWA-TR-97-70/2 Period: 01 Jul 97-30 Sep 97 40h $2,242
15 DSWA-TR-97-70/3 Period: 01 Oct 97-31 Dec 97 40h $2,242
16 DSWA-TR-97-70/4 Period: 01 Jan 98-31 Mar 98 40h $2,242
17 DSWA-TR-97-70/5 Period: 01 Apr 98-30 Jun 98 40h $2,242
18 DSWA-TR-97-70/6 Period: 01 Jul 98-30 Sep 98 40h $2,242
19 Final Report Period: 04 Apr 97-31 Dec 98 234h $12,018
20 CDRL #6: Software User's Manual & Programs 10h $599
21 User's Manual & CD ROM turnover 10h $599
22 Certified Mail to FCDTRA & HQDTRA 5h $299
23 Receipt Signature DTRA to TNU 5h $299
24 Administration Fee's, Overheads & Travel 16h $27,530
Default
Complete Complete Milestone Remaining Remaining Milestone Baseline 1 Required Date % Labor Complete
Attachment 4 Page # 2 of 2

Thermo NUtech
Project Staffing Plan
Run Date: 2/1/2006
On-Site Staff Week
End
Start
1 CRAIG MORRISON SM
1 ALLAN BURDETT SM
2 DAVE LAW / GEORGE FUKUOKA (2/9/98) PM
3 OMITTED DURING DEFINITIZATION PE
3 LIZ MOLL TA
4 JOE COLLINS E-O#2
4 MIKE DILLON (replaced Tony Burks) CR-PO#1
5 JIMMY ROBINSON HEO#3
6 ALEX LUNA PO#2
7 GEORGE FUKUOKA / JUSTIN TAWZER (5/25/98) HEO#1
8 LARRY STROW HEO#2
9 TONY BURKS / DAN FUKUOKA W-O
10 MIKE RUBY HEO#4
10 DAN CORDOVA E-O#1
11 WILLIAM KNIGHT (Instrument Cal / Rpr) HP-Inst.
12 DAVE ROZNOVSKY (Safety & Access Control) HP-AC
13 HERMAN TRUJILLO HP-CR
14 MIKE MORRIS HP-CR
End
Start
Total MO's on Site
Total Op's on Site
Total HP's on Site
Total Staff on Site
Weekly Average Staffing
(April 97 thru September 98) 10.47
(October 97 thru September 98) 9.85
In-Plant Staff Week
End
Start
1 Rick Doane PRM
2 Allan Burdett (THRU 10/26/97) DPM
3 Dan Royal / Matt Souder DA / DPM
4 Deby Huckleby PA
5 Teresa Juni PC
6 Allan Burdett (Beginning 10/27/97) SM
Travel
Location Week
End
Start
1 Johnston Island (R)
2 Albequerque, NM (A)
3 Washington, DC (W)
Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98
4/12 4/19 4/26 5/3 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/5
4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25 6/1 6/8 6/15 6/22 6/29
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 R
R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R R
R R 1 2 3 4 5 R R 1 2
R 1 2 3 4 5 R R 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 R R 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 R R 1 2 3 4
R 1 2 3 4 5 6
R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R R
6 7 8 R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R R 1 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R R 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R R 1
6 7 8 R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4/12 4/19 4/26 5/3 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/5
4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25 6/1 6/8 6/15 6/22 6/29
1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1
4 5 6 5 5 5 3 4 3 6 5 6 6
4 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 4
9 9 11 10 11 11 10 10 8 10 9 11 11
64% 64% 79% 71% 79% 79% 71% 71% 57% 71% 64% 79% 79%
4/12 4/19 4/26 5/3 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/5
4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25 6/1 6/8 6/15 6/22 6/29
O O O R R O R R O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O A O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
4/12 4/19 4/26 5/3 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/5
4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25 6/1 6/8 6/15 6/22 6/29
2 3 1 4 1 2 5 2 5 2 4 1 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Rpt Spreadsheets
Staffing Page 6
Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Thermo NUtech
Spend Plan Forecast
Run Date: 2/1/2006Status Thru: 10/4/98
On-Site Staff Week
End
Start
1 CRAIG MORRISON SM
1 ALLAN BURDETT SM
2 DAVE LAW / GEORGE FUKUOKA (2/9/PM
3 OMITTED DURING DEFINITIZATION PE
3 LIZ MOLL TA
4 JOE COLLINS E-O#2
4 MIKE DILLON (replaced Tony Burks) CR-PO#1
5 JIMMY ROBINSON HEO#3
6 ALEX LUNA PO#2
7 GEORGE FUKUOKA / JUSTIN TAWZE HEO#1
8 LARRY STROW HEO#2
9 TONY BURKS / DAN FUKUOKA W-O
10 MIKE RUBY HEO#4
10 DAN CORDOVA E-O#1
11 WILLIAM KNIGHT (Instrument Cal / Rpr HP-Inst.
12 DAVE ROZNOVSKY (Safety & Access CHP-AC
13 HERMAN TRUJILLO HP-CR
14 MIKE MORRIS HP-CR
On-Site Labor Cost Summary
Total Site MO Labor
Total Op' Labor
Total HP Labor
In-Plant Labor Cost Summary
Rick Doane PRM
Allan Burdett / Rplmnt DPM/SM
Dan Royal / Matt Souder DA/DPM
Deby Huckleby PA
Teresa Juni PC
Subcontract Cost Summary
Travel Cost Forecast
Johnston Island
Albequerque, NM
Washington, DC
Materials Summary
Equipment Summary
Dosimetry & Lab Fees
On-site OH @ 85%
In-Plant OH @ 180%
G & A @ 12.5%
Fee @ 5.7%
Materials (Exclusive of G&A)
Facilities Capital Cost of Money
Total Cost Forecast
Total Cost @ period end
Remaining Funding 4,228,736
Funding Adjustments 1 500 000
Monthly Summaries ( u i u e )
Subcontract Cost Summary
Travel Cost Forecast
Materials Summary
Equipment Summary
Dosimetry & Lab Fees
On-site OH @ 85%
In-Plant OH @ 180%
G & A @ 12.5%
Fee @ 5.7%
Materials (Exclusive of G&A)
Facilities Capital Cost of Money
Monthly Spend Forecast
Quarterly Spend Forecast
Cost Performance Analysis
Total Actual Labor Summary
Schedule Earned Labor $
CPI Indicator
Apr-98 May-98
4/12 4/19 4/26 5/3 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31
4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25
1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,583
378 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,388
332 332 1,453 1,453 1,453 1,453 1,211
352 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 352
1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 352
1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 352
352 1,552
352 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552
1,552 1,552 1,552 352 352 1,552 1,552
1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552
1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 352
1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552
1,552 1,552 1,552 352 352 1,552 1,552
1,552 352 352 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,552
$14,763 $15,154 $17,584 $16,671 $15,709 $16,343 $15,579 $13,874
2,232 2,277 3,898 5,019 5,019 5,019 5,019 4,182
6,560 8,112 9,312 8,112 7,760 8,112 6,063 6,208
6,208 5,008 4,656 3,808 4,656 5,008 6,208 5,008
$1,808 $1,808 $1,808 $1,808 $1,726 $1,726 $1,726 $1,609
1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205
769 769 769 769 769 769 769 615
256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256
47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,722 $4,083 $1,361 $5,444 $1,167 $2,334 $5,835 $2,334
2,268 3,402 1,134 4,536 1,134 2,268 5,670 2,268
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$1,739 $1,739 $1,739 $1,739 $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 $5,200
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$350 $525 $175 $700 $88 $175 $438 $174
$11,841 $11,019 $12,786 $12,122 $11,819 $12,296 $11,721 $10,437
$3,254 $3,254 $3,254 $3,255 $3,107 $3,107 $3,107 $2,897
$4,516 $4,632 $4,817 $5,130 $4,841 $5,126 $5,396 $4,544
$2,059 $2,112 $2,196 $2,339 $2,207 $2,337 $2,461 $2,072
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$342 $342 $342 $342 $342 $342 $342 $342
$43,394 $44,669 $46,062 $49,550 $46,206 $48,986 $51,803 $43,483
$2,655,496 $2,700,165 $2,746,227 $2,795,778 $2,841,983 $2,890,968 $2,942,771 $2,986,254
1,276,503 1,231,834 1,185,772 1,136,222 1,090,016 1,041,031 989,228 945,745
Apr-98 73% May-98 78%
$64,173 $61,506
$7,231 $6,787
$0 $0
$13,611 $11,669
$6,956 $20,801
$0 $0
$1,750 $875
$47,769 $46,272
$13,017 $12,216
$19,094 $19,906
$8,707 $9,077
$0 $0
$1,367 $1,367
$183,674 $190,477
5th Quarter
$562,308
Apr-98 (Actuals thru 5/3/98) May-98 (Actuals thru 5/3
Period Cumulative Period Cumulative
$64,173 $931,958 $61,506 $993,464
$7,231 $128,845 $6,787 $135,632
$71,404 $1,060,803 $68,293 $1,129,096
$976,754 $1,119,639
0.92 0.99
Final Rpt Spreadsheets
Costing Page 7 Prj Mgr Rick Doane

Johnston Atoll Remediation Project_WMSymp98

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie Johnston Atoll Remediation Project_WMSymp98

Ähnlich wie Johnston Atoll Remediation Project_WMSymp98 (20)

Johnston Atoll Remediation Project_WMSymp98